User Profile: bonesiii


Member Since: October 14, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • November 19, 2014 at 11:59pm

    “cause they’re way down on my list of shalts and shalt nots”

    With slavery, it’s not about God’s priorities of what’s worse sins or not, but man’s priorities (at the time) of what they would and would not accept. The slavery allowances are worded as just that — allowances, not approval. And given that the Hebrews had just gotten out of slavery themselves, and what we now know about Stockholm syndrome, it makes sense some version of it would be a thing they would demand, or reject the whole thing (and then act even worse; failure to work in the system to take it down).

  • November 19, 2014 at 11:58pm

    Primarily it was to lead to redemption through Jesus (as I understand it anyways), and to get as many as possible, despite all the contrary factors like freewill and causality, to accept that redemption, both prior and after.

    3) And don’t forget the context of all of this of slowly working within the system to undermine the system, of the entrenched violence that sinners established after the Fall. It may be that a test imitating a commanded sacrifice was needed at this stage for that, including the candidate actually thinking maybe he should plunge that knife. God isn’t allowed to just mind control people to make sure there was somebody who wouldn’t even think of it.

    “but I won’t mention rape”

    ?? I think rape was mentioned. >_> I’ve actually seen some argue that the words in question don’t necessarily refer to that, but that aside (not sure offhand if that’s all cases or just some/one…), I think there are clearly categories that would include it, and the death penalty was prescribed for it. There’s more discussion on this on page 1 here (I… well, I have a lousy memory but I thought you were the one in that discussion… aaaanyways…).

    “or slavery”

    Slavery is not only mentioned but regulated… but that’s a long subject I’ve already said a lot on in past articles. Suffice to say, here again groundwork was being laid to overcome it… and one more point to the next quote:

  • November 19, 2014 at 11:58pm

    May seem counterintuitive I know, but it makes sense.)

    Also, I don’t really buy claims that Abe was SUPER special… he was probably the top candidate but not necessarily just because of him — God would also have to factor how all descendants would behave. This is way more complex of a juggling act than that, right? I think the thing with Abe was more that God had to pick somebody to get this ball rolling (sorry I’m mixing metaphors here badly lol), and the things God did before this would have probably made anybody (within a group of candidates, perhaps; maybe not literally anybody) react pretty close to rightly by that time.

    Besides, God would already have known how he’d take the test anyways. Though that gets complicated too; depends (basically) on if others would need to see somebody fail first. I kinda think this one works best with the first candidate being the success, though. More “impressive” that way (not that that’s what matters… not sure what the right word choice would be there. More… meaningful, let’s say).

    “to help me write down some rules of proper conduct”

    Several issues:

    1) God didn’t need the help. The method was to help us. (I’m sure you have concerns. Go ahead and ask, though be aware I might not keep checking back here for many more days now.)

    2) While this was part of it, that alone would not be enough to justify acting, since without a salvation plan it would all be pointless.

  • November 19, 2014 at 11:57pm

    Regardless of the fact that god seemed satisfied in Abe’s response , I have to deduce that deep down, god considered Abe to be somewhat of a dimwit for sheepishly going along with what even god must have thought was a rather monstrous idea!”

    But aren’t you assuming that Abe only considered that he actually had to kill Ike? I’ve explained why I don’t think that, and in fact probably the test idea was more likely. We do know that he was aware of the resurrection option, but that doesn’t mean that’s ALL that occurred to him.

    In any case, yeah, God thinks (knows :P) we’re all dimwits compared to him. Infinite intelligence wins that contest anytime no matter how smart the finite intelligence. :P

    “He probably thought ” If this guy Abram is one of my finest creations and he still flunked the test so miserably, I better get someone else”


    WAS there anybody else? I think it’s pretty clearly implied that Abe was the top candidate of all in the world. Keep in mind that some (most?) would have refused, valuing the son over God. (Not out of concern for the son as we moderns would like to think, but for selfish reasons having more to do with lack of faith in resurrection and the need to continue your line, and that also includes a rejection of Love, which means down the line you might start justifying even worse things, like actual murder, or lead future generations down that path.[...]

  • November 19, 2014 at 11:56pm

    “As Jim Jeffries said about the 10 Commandments ;” was it really necessary for god to tell us that it was not ok to kill someone…that had to be written down??”

    Keep in mind Cain was told directly by God that he was being tempted by evil, and yet he still murdered Abel. This would have been right after the Fall, when intelligence was still near its natural peak (assuming that theory is true; I think it is). And the highly intelligent today sometimes are killers. Actually this point was made in one of my WWII classes — you’d think higher education and intelligence would mean that’s rarer, but all of the founders of the Nazi movement were highly educated, and it didn’t stop them. (And it would be presumed that they couldn’t have reached those levels of educational success… or political BTW… without being fairly intelligent… just not in the right ways, or a cold intelligence.)

    Anyways… I could keep going on this one, but suffice to say I don’t think this works against the omniscience point. There are too many differences between these two examples. However, my main reason for bringing that up wasn’t necessarily for Abe per se, but moderns attempting to interpret the passage; we DO have the rest of the Bible.

    “2) As far as your theory that god was testing us, have you considered that god was testing our sense of morality and reason? [...]

  • November 19, 2014 at 11:55pm

    I don’t mind a bit of satire, though — I venture into there a little. But it can be dangerous. It should be done to make a point more clearly, not to hurt. I find it’s usually very hard to separate the two.

    “When a god who claims to be omniscient tests you, the logical deduction is that the test is for your benefit…”
    1) we have no evidence that any persons of the bible other than Jesus and other prophets were aware of any such thing as they were mostly uneducated,”

    Not totally sure what you mean here… this is just a general caution… but I’m going to guess that you mean that Abe wouldn’t have known that. However, I’ve posted points in here that do point to him probably having either deduced it logically, or it already being common knowledge. Notice the entire end of Yohb (which was written before Abe) emphasizes God’s omniscience (and man’s… not… :P) a ton.

    Also, this is probably a common modern misconception that education = smarter. It means more knowledgeable about things we can’t deduce on our own, but omniscience actually is easily deducible from the causality proof, which I think everybody runs subconsciously. This matters because the modern trend to blindly ignore the intuition, even often mock those who listen to it, was rare or unheard of in ancient times. Long story, but I’ve mentioned a bit more detail somewhere else here.

  • November 19, 2014 at 11:55pm

    “I’ve got to hand it to you; You got style!”

    Apparent emotion base…?

    Not that there’s anything wrong with style… but isn’t this an issue where your concerns should be on more important things?

    “Have you ever considered creating you tube videos”

    Not that you care… but… Well hang on… *skims ahead* Hm… Maybe you DO… I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Anyways, considered, yes. Taken seriously? Ehhhhhhhh…..

    For now, tektonTV is doing such an admirable job, and my interests are in other things.

    “challenging the likes of Boinic Dance, Dark Matter, Matt Dillahunty, Robin Dupres, The Atheist Voice, Lawrence Krauss, et al?”

    To be honest, I don’t watch a lot of YT atheist sources. In my experience so far YT tends to be the pits for atheist credibility (though they seem to assume the opposite lol). Plus, I prefer reading. Sometimes there’s captions, but not usually very reliable. I prefer to look for written sources and online debates primarily. I’ve written some drafts of analyses of some of them, though, probably for eventual posting online somewhere. But here again, tekton has been doing a great job (esp. re: Dark Matter).

    “I do my absolute best with logic, reason, satire and humour, but there are times when I realize I may have gone too far.
    Mea Culpa”

    If you’re being serious here — and I gotta be honest, based on your behavior in other posts, I must wonder… but hey — then much appreciated. :)

  • November 19, 2014 at 11:16pm


    Stand up, Chuck!

    Buy a shotgun!


    Wait for it…

    Buy a shotgun!

  • [-1] November 19, 2014 at 11:14pm

    I can believe you that you’re not an atheist, but your behavior matches the fundy pattern to a tee, Or.

    Painful to hear, I’m sure, and that’s not my intent. :( But maybe you do need to be alerted to it.

  • November 19, 2014 at 11:12pm

    “is that the creator of this incredible universe couldn’t have come up with a smarter plan than this? I mean, sacrificing himself, to himself, to appease himself for flawed creation like man?
    Why didn’t he just do a better job on mankind?”

    You’re forgetting the factor of freewill… which is pretty much common knowledge…

    And BTW, I call parroting. I’ve heard almost that exact wording several times before. ;)

  • November 19, 2014 at 11:11pm

    Yo Let… Does it ever occur to you your strategy is so obvious as to be pointless?

  • [1] November 19, 2014 at 11:03pm

    Mainly I was curious why you brought up allegory in an article about the Abe killing Isaac test. However, I gave the whole comment section another read through, and it appears my concern was probably unwarranted as you seem to have brought it up mainly in response to one guy who said something about taking the Bible symbolically. I can see how that would warrant that response.

    And thanks for clarifying the other thing. No real need for more reply, but I am still curious if you do affirm this was a real historical event. If you want to. *shrugs*

  • November 19, 2014 at 10:57pm

    Now there could be borderline cases where somebody might not have been quite that bad, where she might not want that, but it was an option, and probably what happened a lot. But if she was secure enough by other means (what God wanted things to move toward as today they have!), she would not need this, and he COULD be punished by death.

    I’m sure you don’t care, but that’s a problem. Let.

  • November 19, 2014 at 10:54pm

    “I know nothing about the virgin being given a choice to marry her assailant or not , but the fact you consider that to be a reasonable option, to marry someone who has sexually assaulted you without your consent, ie rape!
    This suggests that you are made up from the same corrupt moral fibre as the other whacko apologist on this board, Bones.”

    The thing is, it sounds okay for you in your comfortable modern society typing on your internet device to use things like this as a bludgeon against views you don’t subscribe to… but you’re failing to actually care about the poor woman in the actual ancient situation as it really stood, which we have plenty of historical evidence for. You clearly have not felt bothered to even research what that might have been like.

    Most importantly, you’re missing that marriage was the primary method of financial support for women in that period. Now it shouldn’t have been like this; this happened in large part due to a male-dominant culture that developed almost globally, predicted in Genesis 3, but the fact is God needed to ensure some way to work within the system just enough to lay the groundwork for changing it, that would provide for them enough in their “here and now” (then and there).

    Hear me again — the law was that the rapist would be forced to financially support her for her entire life, and nowhere does it say she must submit to him! He would send the money to her as punishment.

  • November 19, 2014 at 10:32pm

    Typocorrect: Instead they tend to grasp onto the few known instances of (poorly educated) intuitions [giving bad answers]

  • November 19, 2014 at 2:14pm

    Once again, I say this not to shame you, but to wake you up and alert you to a danger; so that you are not trapped into assuming that because you have been able to ask complex questions, that the good answers are not obvious. IMO they are. It’s just that unfortunately many moderns have been misled into ignoring their intuitions, and not learning logic so as to train their intuitions to feed them the right answers more reliably.

    Instead they tend to grasp onto the few known instances of (poorly educated) intuitions and ignore that all entirely. Which, if you aren’t well educated in logic, makes some sense as a precaution, but it really should motivate you to learn logic and apply it rigorously.

    Point is, it may SEEM because explaining all this took a lot of words that my learning and holding to sound logic forces me to experience this all as a long, complex, linear (boring, un-obvious) chain of thoughts (as in things I don’t instantly understand on seeing the words spoken that sum them up). It isn’t; that illusion only happens when somebody needs those obvious things spelled out for them due to this mistaken philosophy, since communication IS linear (at least fully explicit communication with no “imply obvious things” types allowed).

    Rather, my learning and holding to sound logic helps me QUICKLY and MORE FULLY understand things, in part intuitively. :)

  • November 19, 2014 at 2:08pm

    ..something I have noticed in discussions online is that most of the things I have brought up are actually patently obvious to people in their “natural” state, and this need to question (but see a caution below about my word choice here) such basics of reality does not actually show “being smarter” (or however you wanna put it), but actually an attitude that is learned toward truth, that is not sound, and leads away from peace. (But itself is still a somewhat understandable misapplication of a good practice of asking questions.)

    Now questioning is good… but the problem is that too many have been taught a foolish approach that says “if you can think of a question that takes work/time to understand the answer to, you don’t need to bother taking that time and can assume the answer can’t be good.”

    The implication is that only ideas that nobody has yet thought of good questions about the details for can be true (so you pay the 2.99 because it hasn’t occurred to you to think it might be an illusion… sort of. Also because the practical foolishness of that is more immediately obvious than hell which feels distant). Not that people consciously imply this, but this is what their approach should mean if they took it to its logical conclusion.

    In other words, most of what I just explained, most people get from the short versions, intuitively. That you don’t get them is actually another mark against your credibility as a thinker.

  • November 19, 2014 at 2:02pm

    (And all who REEALLY want to know, or at least most, could investigate globally to increase knowledge of it once found). Although the “why didn’t he spread it more universally” question comes up here… suffice to say it’s not my point right now and I think there’s a good (but complicated… siiiigh) answer. Anyways, point is, the best way to test it is to look for a verified message from an omniscient being.

    Now, two more things.

    First, an observation. You say you researched and thought for yourself, but honestly, you’ve been raising all the stock concerns I see “fundy atheists” using uncritically. I’m not accusing you of being one; you’ve been MUCH more reasonable, but I’m saying, maybe you need to do some serious rethinking of just how well thought through this is. :) These are all basic questions I struggled with too, but by actually DOING the thinking and research, I found good answers.

    That you’re still at the stage where apparently these things haven’t occurred to you makes me suspect you haven’t actually done nearly enough research. It does not help evidence credibility that I should trust your conclusion (no offense but it’s true).

    Also, although I suspect you don’t need this, but for the sake of others reading along, and it may help you to realize a flaw in your approach to truthseeking… it may seem like I have been bringing up a LOT of complexity which may turn some off to the message, but… [see next]

  • November 19, 2014 at 1:58pm

    But as I already pointed out, apathy or wishful thinking can do absolutely nothing to stop it from BEING true, and are very dangerous approaches.

    I’m no longer even sure we “should” hope it’s not so. It actually seems to derive from the causality proof (not the “literal fire” version, the “state of imperfection” one) and our undeniable existence of a flawed reality right here and now (so we can’t say that only perfection exists anyways). We SHOULD be logical, and since it seems that something like this MUST exist, and is logically where those who reject Perfection have to end up… as uncomfortable as it is to acknowledge, and as painful when those we love (that’s everybody in my case :( ) may go there, should we hope that things we basically know exist, and are bad, don’t actually exist?

    If so, then it seems I should hope that that shooting near my neighborhood this month didn’t REALLY happen, or that wreck I saw recently was just an illusion…



    Actually, it’s not even about what I witnessed personally… You can’t just use the fact that you haven’t personally seen hell to rule it out.

    That’s the worst possible way to test it! And that in fact is part of another reason for the causality-proof God to NEED to give a message (one for all, so the possibility of ignorant jungle peeps can exist to avoid the risk of cult liars), to warn at least some of its existence.

  • November 19, 2014 at 1:58pm

    That does not follow. A Holy and Just God who is Love should make beings who have freewill (so can thus actually love), and should not reward those who abuse it, especially those who actually even reject offers they personally are given of forgiveness! (So, whatever happens to obscure jungle tribes, that doesn’t give you who DO know the gospel an excuse. But ask if curious on that.)

    “but of “a god of pettiness and evil”. A deity not worthy of anyone’s worship.”

    Sorry but while that’s a common interpretation, it’s frankly a nutso one. Rejecting the one perfect Way just because imperfect ways also exist is… hopelessly… illogical and foolish… I’m trying hard not to be insulting here man, but it’s hard when you parrot such mindless nonsense. :P Please take the time to think this through critically. It does not hold up, and it is not applied in other walks of life (because taking a pain pill doesn’t make other people not experience pain, or you at other times, you reject taking that pill? Of course, not the best analogy; there are situations I don’t take pain pills for lol… but still…). You eating properly doesn’t feed the hungry, so you starve yourself to death?

    “I am not concerned with the concept because I do not believe it to be literally true. And for all people’s sake, all should hope so, too.”

123 To page: Go